[net.space] The following is from Paul Torek -- Don't belieive the address!

laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Paul Torek) (09/27/83)

(for complicated political reasons involving who does, and does not
get to post news, umcp-cs!dr_who has been gagged at umcp-cs. I am,  
however, perfectly willing to help Paul beat the system by posting articles 
from him until he gets his own system (prometh) up and ready to send
news. If you want to reply to this, however, you had better send
mail to allegra!umcp-cs!prometh!paul. While I will forward any mail
for him that ends up here, the turn around time is not guaranteed to be
fast -- laura)


******** begin forwarded article ************ 



The following is from Paul Torek.  Send replies to ..umcp-cs!prometh!paul

Whether or not the move into space can have a significant impact on the
population problem depends on what you think "the population problem" is.
Are there too many people on the earth?  "Too many" for what?  The very
concept of overpopulation is an evaluative one; "over"-anything is bad, by
definition.  This is totally obvious and yet the point passed me by for a
long time. 

So first of all, we need a definition of the optimal population before we
can decide whether earth is over- or underpopulated.  Kevin B. Kenny objects
to defining the optimum population as the minumum needed to provide today's
economies of scale; he suggests defining it as the maximum level that
doesn't seriously degrade the quality of life.  But, to state the obvious
again, there is a question of *whose* lives are being considered here --
only those who are already living, or also those who we are debating over
whether to bring into the world?

There is a straightforwardly ethical question here, and my opinion is that
the more people who are able to enjoy life here on earth (or anywhere else),
the better.  From this perspective, the expansion of the human species into
space is great -- we could increase the human population of the universe
drastically.  If there are eventually millions of planets with billions of
humans each, that would be fantastic even apart from its beneficial effects
here on earth!

Bruce Hamilton asked if there are any studies on what is the optimal
population.  Yes -- for references, see Julian Simon's book, *The Ultimate
Resource*.  Simon argues, and I agree, that what level is optimum depends on
the state of the technological art, and that the earth's ability to
accomodate more people will probably increase in the future, due to
technological advances and economic growth.  He argues furthermore that
population growth has long-term beneficial effects, particularly increased
scientific and technological advancement (as noted by some writers on the
net.)

That's it for now -- flame away!

--Paul Torek, ..umcp-cs!prometh!paul